- From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:47:22 -0800
- To: "'Paul Leach'" <paulle@windows.microsoft.com>, "'Henrik Nordstrom'" <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, "'Lisa Dusseault'" <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Cc: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
>If adding this as a MUST can make existing compliant HTTP/1.1 clients non-compliant, >then I think that it's outside what the WG charter allows (and logically would require >a new minor version of HTTP, would it not?). Frequently confused point: Interoperability is the goal. If there are "compliant" clients that fail to interoperate properly with "compliant" servers, it's a flaw in the protocol design and it's reasonable to restrict the behavior of one or the other in order to improve interoperability. 2616 won't go away, and if you were compliant with 2616 before, you will be after the protocol is updated. Larry
Received on Friday, 21 December 2007 08:49:03 UTC